Damn, looks like I was a bit too late. Sorry, did not mean to post such a redundant post. I swear, N.Wells, your comment wasn't there yet, when I started writing mine. Left it open for a while, while getting some stuff done, and then came back and finished it.

No problem. Gary's "prevailed" was rather low-hanging fruit, just asking for a reaction, so no surprise that we both responded the same way.

Either he was hoping no one here would check the link and take his word for it (which would be stupid), or he genuinely thought that this was him "prevailing", in which case: yikes, this does not bode well for his mental state.

All that is now happening in OOL science that makes the official ID premise true is at the same time in molecular detail showing how our "intelligent designer" works. Leaving such a process up to the imagination will no longer be necessary.

Bioinformatics has the tools for studying "information" and cognitive science is for all that is "intelligent".

A "non-intelligent source for information" is not needed. Only need an "intelligent" one that leads to chemistry and cognitive science galore, instead of religious imagination.

We can now Google Scholar origin of life information that science teachers need to at least be aware of, to be current in their field. The overwhelming amount of chemistry based information that now exists helps show how well things are going towards cognitive science friendly chemistry on up models that connect with what organizations like Numenta exists to (from opposite direction) model in as much biological detail as possible.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

All that is now happening in OOL science that makes the official ID premise true is at the same time in molecular detail showing how our "intelligent designer" works. Leaving such a process up to the imagination will no longer be necessary.

Bioinformatics has the tools for studying "information" and cognitive science is for all that is "intelligent".

A "non-intelligent source for information" is not needed. Only need an "intelligent" one that leads to chemistry and cognitive science galore, instead of religious imagination.

Gaulinese at its worst. Meaningless drivel from a moronic non-scientist.

[Gary] Ideas like mine don't even need a name. The problem is that the Discovery Institute premise is talking about something "intelligent" that's needed for genetic systems to work as well as they did/do, and so am I but of course the DI gets all the attention.

First of all, you are being a pretentious asshole regardless of the value of your ideas. Secondly, both the Discovery Institute and the term "intelligent design" have probably been around much longer than you've been doing this. I would expect someone interested in biology to have an understanding of naming precedence. But, jokes aside, that's simply not how language works. Your obstinance makes your rhetoric minimally effective because your insistence on using the term "intelligent design" aligns you with the DI right off the bat.

Quote

[Gary] From my perspective the DI has been mucking up my turf. And people behind the theory I'm developing don't want to be stereotyped as DI puppets either.

The DI has a much better linguistic claim to the turf than you do. You're not interested in advancing science, you just want to co-opt a name that is already well-known.

Quote

The most heroic thing to do was to make the DI's wildest scientific dreams come true too, so they like me must next beware of the possible destroyed by their own monster outcome. Small price to pay for success.

Holy god your ego is overinflated.

Quote

All this makes it easy for things to peacefully change to a way of thinking that leaves you awestruck by how much intelligence actually exists in all of biology.

Wat. The only thing leaving me awestruck is the display of mental gymnastics you're putting on.

Quote

As in insects cells have antennae to sense motion too.

And they don't do so in an intelligent way. Is a light switch intelligent because I can flick it on and off and the circuit responds accordingly?

You amaze me. You're in that perfect spot on the intellectual confidence curve where you know just enough to be infatuated with your own knowledge but far too little to actually understand the complexities of what you're talking about. Everything's just blurry enough to you that you feel like it fits perfectly in the box you've created.

Also, I don't mean to be off topic, but what is your first language? You've got some interesting grammatical pattern

Here's Gary arguing that the Discovery Institute is screwing up his ideas rather than the other way around

Quote

In the mid 90's I introduced the levels and other core features of the model/theory that is based upon David Heiserman's machine language work, and terminology.

I don't think the DI knew what it was getting into.

....................

I wrote about in a short book called "Science to Believe In" that did not make the bestseller list, was self-published, but it's still around in thought. It's possible for one or more of them to have found their way to Seattle. Grunge was around at the time, as was cultural exchange through Boston. If true then I hope the ID movement was not in some way my fault.

Note: An early draft of the creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" notoriously replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design" and "creationists" with "cdesign proponentsists" in 1987, preceding Gary's claimed origination by half a decade, give or take.

[Gary] From my perspective the DI has been mucking up my turf. And people behind the theory I'm developing don't want to be stereotyped as DI puppets either.

As N.Wells reveals, it appears your "real-science theory" is once again "doing well" at Reddit.

I'm curious, please tell us who are these "people behind the theory" you are "developing"?

Remember...imaginary friends don't count.

I can start off with an Atheist named John Gorecki who graduated from UMASS with honors in physics who around 1990 starting helping word what was in the book, especially grammar. With our having cable TV he spent so much time at where we then lived and we were so loud my wife was going crazy. He's like an N.Wells of physics, but was OK with the 3 levels explained as I still do. You can be sure he does NOT want to be seen as a puppet of the Discovery Institute.

The theory I had was later called into action in response to the Kansas public hearing, which led to "creationist" Kathy Martin becoming an inspiration that added a NSTA published self-assembly demonstration to the theory base. I still focused on what (both John and) Kathy would be OK with and somehow impressed by, instead of seeing it as a battle against all in "creationism". Look for the positive things to say, instead of negative. And for an elected school board official it's vital to not get stereotyped as a big-tent puppet controlled by some guys from Seattle. It's a basic politics thing. In the second term election she brilliantly answered the KCFS questionnaire question asking who she more or less listens to by answering with all who wanted her attention like KCFS, NSTA,,, as well as the Discovery Institute. As an elected official she's supposed to take input from everywhere then fairly judge. The NSTA worthy fun times of the ID experience going on in Kansas gave her loose-cannon type power that I sensed made the DI nervous, they never mentioned/bothered her even for (as far as I know) the "Expelled" movie.

All public school officials have to avoid being seen as a puppet of someone else including Jack Krebs and others at the KCFS forum who were easily oppositely stereotyped as following an Atheist doctrine instead of scientific evidence. I in that forum realized that the ID premise was achievable. Regardless of how DI puppet that might have made me seem I did not get kicked out for it, which helped KCFS avoid being stereotyped as an organization that by "censorship" was "suppressing" a scientific theory. Problem was that the DI did not have a scientific theory, only nice sounding premise for one.

What I develop is and will always be on Kathy's and other's behalf. Not the DI who in my opinion only got many way over ther head in unexpected turmoil. The people who were there at the time most wanted to see what happens where someone at least tries to scientifically follow the premise to wherever else in science it leads. As was shown real scientific theory results in things that make a life long public school educator proud to have been a part of, not later dread. All in Kansas who had faith in her giving "the theory of intelligent design" a "fair hearing" ended up with one that's this way still going strong on in 2018.

It's important to understand how in the world of state level politics and especially the ID issue its best for all concerned to never be wrongly stereotyped as puppets of outside interests by giving credit where due regardless of possible bad reputation for mixing science and religion. Otherwise the DI gains power from what then became of a fair public hearing on behalf of Kansas taxpayers, that ended in chaos. This way it's a compliment for the DI to be made scientifically powerless (but not destroyed) by a Darwinian-free theory that came from them instead. It's not saying the DI is totally on the wrong track, just that they have no real scientific theory for "intelligent cause" yet and why. It's then easy for all concerned to not care what happens to the institute that legally demanded their issues with education standards be heard, then got more than they bargained for by having done so in Kansas. Jack Krebs and board members established excellent communications with world scientists. It was the best incubator for new ideas on the internet.

As in the public hearing days there is the same one sentence premise sometimes being drilled into your/our mind. You must (regardless of source) fairly judge its scientific merit. It's then very useful to have a fair metric showing what is potentially scientifically true. There is no other way of ruling out that it is scientifically possible but the DI does not have that. It's purpose has always been to help prevent others from becoming a puppet.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I first discovered that she might be running for US president. Tonight I found out her current plans include holding educators accountable for worthless degrees and outright fraud in order to attract students, and restore the integrity of the US accreditation system that allows it:

To be fair to the authors I'm now waiting for a reply to this ID related request that gives representative(s) of Bob Jones University an opportunity to show everyone how scientifically useful their science curriculum actually is.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I never received a complaint about how I represent cognitive sciences, and historic leaders.

That's certainly a falsehood, but perhaps Gary meant he didn't receive a complaint within the previous couple of minutes before he posted his manic mélange of text.

I've made specific and detailed complaints about Gaulin's handling of his favorite authorities on the topic, and the complaints about his handling of "historic leaders" seem to have pretty much complete coverage for such people Gaulin has dissed.

It would be one thing for Gaulin to say that he holds all the complaints he's received to be groundless (even if he does so groundlessly himself); it's quite another for him to assert that the complaints, where he demonstrably directly responded to many of them, were not made.

I scientifically qualify as a "design theorist" and can be fair by offering the opportunity to at a university level respond to what I have for a model/theory to explain "intelligent cause". I'm easy to please, only need something that adds to either of my above presentations. It's then necessary for me to include it then thank you, maybe change my opinion of the usefulness of (assuming you are one of the authors) yours. Without that I only see more of the usual claims that make it seem like randomness in a system is bad when in fact random guesses are vital to how any trial and error (intelligence) works.

First there is room to improve your writing so that others can clearly understand what you are trying to say. Second, trial and error is not equivalent to intelligence. When making more intelligent choices was not an option, intelligence lies in learning from the outcomes of trials and errors, not in making random guesses. Third, it is possible for a non-intelligent system to make advances through trial and error without involving intelligence: for example, autofocus routines in cameras, evolutionary algorithms, and evolution by mutation and natural selection.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.

Gaulin has changed his text between that time and the present, primarily to expunge reference to the name "citric acid cycle" and only refer to the "reverse citric acid cycle". (PDF last visited 2018-10-24.)

Quote

In some bacteria and later in time plants, molecular intelligence systems could likely control theReverse Krebs Cycle (also known as the Reverse TriCarboxylic Acid Cycle (TCA cycle), ReverseSzent-Györgyi–Krebs Cycle or Reverse/Reductive Citric Acid Cycle). This cycle is the center ofcellular metabolism, consuming carbon dioxide while providing energy and molecular intermediatesthat are used to build amino acids and other vital biomolecules needed to sustain its growth.

So we see that Gaulin took my option #3 as his way forward.

Gaulin also managed to leave information in his text that applies to the citric acid cycle, but not the reverse citric acid cycle. It's a common hazard when simply changing names in text to then induce error. It should be amusing to check on this in another six years to see whether he manages to correct that bit of erroneous biology in his text.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gaulin has changed his text between that time and the present, primarily to expunge reference to the name "citric acid cycle" and only refer to the "reverse citric acid cycle". (PDF last visited 2018-10-24.)

The paper I was explaining did NOT show the forward citric acid cycle it showed the reverse Krebs cycle (also known as the reverse tricarboxylic acid cycle, the reverse TCA cycle, or the reverse citric acid cycle).

You're an annoying pest.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I scientifically qualify as a "design theorist" and can be fair by offering the opportunity to at a university level respond to what I have for a model/theory to explain "intelligent cause". I'm easy to please, only need something that adds to either of my above presentations. It's then necessary for me to include it then thank you, maybe change my opinion of the usefulness of (assuming you are one of the authors) yours. Without that I only see more of the usual claims that make it seem like randomness in a system is bad when in fact random guesses are vital to how any trial and error (intelligence) works.

First there is room to improve your writing so that others can clearly understand what you are trying to say. Second, trial and error is not equivalent to intelligence. When making more intelligent choices was not an option, intelligence lies in learning from the outcomes of trials and errors, not in making random guesses. Third, it is possible for a non-intelligent system to make advances through trial and error without involving intelligence: for example, autofocus routines in cameras, evolutionary algorithms, and evolution by mutation and natural selection.

Don't forget neural networks. The process itself appears to create outputs that seem to be the result of intelligence or indistinguishable from an intelligent man or machine actor. It's clear to me that Gary's neural networks are fried by an inadequate set of algorithms. Whoever put them in his brain must have been away with the fairies.

Discovery Institute's recent attempt to kill the "Tree of Life" metaphor has combined with past UD vilification of Jewish critics who were speaking the truth about their "theory" has become the proverbial monster of their own creation. Very real and gruesome scenes with blood everywhere, in two of the states these denial based entities have been most successful:

In contrast: Wesley and others just help prod for perfection. With things changing so fast entire sections of the theory are expected to require regular updating, in which case all the text that Wesley saw improvement possible in is soon enough replaced. For the sake of the authors of the paper I focused on I feel bad about having to do so. But there is now the earlier shown illustration and nice paper that goes with it to sum up the current state of research including the stepping stones from Harvard University. Therefore the work I previously introduced is still represented and explained in context to all else by (instead of me) the paper, not gone from theory. At least in Wesley's case I can thank him for prodding me towards working with what I found while challenging Tim Stout and coauthor from Bob Jones University into the theory. If Wesley wants to show me what he expects for restructuring then that's fine by me, may be fun.

At this moment in time we (including the ID theory with my name on it) are here, and at a safe enough distance from the enabling corruption to not become ashes too:

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Elizabeth Warren easily won in Massachusetts. Her opponent's past work for the Trump campagin helped make the Republican challenger unpopular in this state. But Republican Charlie Baker who I voted for won reelection for state Govonor, by having stayed way away from that.

The Senate is still controlled by Republicans but the House of Representatives is now under Democratic control. It should now get much harder to get away with what I explained here:

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.